State v. Carson ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                          NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
    Nos. 123,287
    123,288
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
    STATE OF KANSAS,
    Appellee,
    v.
    JAMES MICHAEL CARSON,
    Appellant.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; JEFFREY SYRIOS, judge. Opinion filed November 12, 2021.
    Affirmed.
    Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6820(g) and
    (h).
    Before ATCHESON, P.J., CLINE and HURST, JJ.
    PER CURIAM: Defendant James Michael Carson appeals the Sedgwick County
    District Court's decision to revoke his probation in two cases. He contends the district
    court abused its discretion by imposing the underlying prison sentences rather than
    continuing him on probation. Carson's appellate lawyer moved for summary disposition
    of the appeal under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48). We
    granted the request. We find no basis to upset the district court's decision and affirm.
    In two cases filed in 2018 and 2019, Carson pleaded guilty to three felony
    offenses: possession of methamphetamine, theft, and fleeing or attempting to elude a law
    1
    enforcement officer. Based on the sentencing recommendations of the parties, the district
    court ordered Carson to serve probation in both cases but ordered the underlying prison
    sentences to run consecutive, yielding a controlling term of 40 months.
    Three months into the probation, Carson admitted to violating the conditions of his
    probation by failing to participate in drug treatment. He waived his right to a hearing and
    consented to a 48-hour jail sanction. A month later, Carson's probation officer alleged
    that Carson had violated the conditions of his probation by failing a drug test, failing to
    report as required, and again failing to participate in drug treatment. Approximately a
    year after sentencing, Carson's probation officer alleged that Carson had committed
    domestic battery.
    Carson waived his right to an evidentiary hearing and admitted to the alleged
    violations. With respect to the domestic battery allegation, Carson admitted to the
    circumstances for the purpose of the violation hearing only. The court followed the
    parties' recommendations for disposition and extended probation for 18 months and
    ordered Carson to serve a 60-day jail sanction followed by 4 months of residential
    placement.
    On August 6, 2020, Carson's probation officer filed a warrant alleging Carson
    committed aggravated escape from custody by leaving the residential facility without
    permission the previous day. Carson later waived his right to an evidentiary hearing and
    admitted the violation. He claimed he left the facility because he believed he had
    contracted COVID-19 and, fearful he might die, wanted to see his family. The court
    revoked Carson's probation and ordered him to serve the underlying prison terms
    imposed at sentencing. Carson has appealed. This court ordered the cases consolidated.
    Carson challenges the district court's disposition of the probation violation as an
    abuse of judicial discretion. Once a district court finds a violation of the conditions of
    2
    probation, it exercises broad judicial discretion in fashioning a disposition. See State v.
    Skolaut, 
    286 Kan. 219
    , 227-28, 
    182 P.3d 1231
     (2008). Judicial discretion is abused when
    the district court steps outside the applicable legal framework, relies on facts that are
    unsupported by substantial competent evidence, or renders a decision properly
    characterized as arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable in the sense no other judicial officer
    would come to a like conclusion. See State v. Miles, 
    300 Kan. 1065
    , 1066, 
    337 P.3d 1291
    (2014). Carson bears the burden of establishing an abuse of judicial discretion. See State
    v. Wells, 
    289 Kan. 1219
    , 1227, 
    221 P.3d 561
     (2009).
    K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716 provides the legal framework for determining an
    authorized sentencing disposition following a probation violation. Carson does not
    dispute the district court's legal authority to revoke his probation nor the court's factual
    basis for revoking probation. Under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716(c)(8)(A), the district
    court was authorized to revoke probation because Carson admitted to committing a new
    offense—aggravated escape from custody.
    Consequently, Carson's claim that the district court abused its discretion hinges on
    the reasonableness of the court's decision to revoke probation and to order that Carson
    serve the underlying prison sentences. Carson, thus, effectively contends no other judge
    would have done so in these circumstances.
    The district court considered Carson's justification for leaving the residential
    facility and found it wanting. The district court noted that Carson had a history of
    probation violations, not all of which were technical violations. Considering Carson's
    history, the court noted that Carson consistently excused his failures on probation. The
    district court did not dispute that Carson had contracted Covid-19 or that Carson wanted
    to see his family, but the district court characterized Carson's behavior as impulsive. He
    did not appear to take his probation obligations seriously and acted without thinking of
    the consequences—especially when he exposed his family members to COVID-19. The
    3
    district court characterized Carson's plea that he would do better and be better if given
    another chance on probation to be nothing more than a repetition of what proved to be
    empty promises he made in response to the earlier probation violations. In short, the
    district court concluded Carson's irresponsible conduct throughout his probation clearly
    warranted revocation and incarceration for the last violation.
    When reviewing a district court's exercise of discretion, an appellate court does
    not substitute its judgment for that of the district court unless no reasonable person would
    have reached the same decision. See Thompson v. Thompson, 
    205 Kan. 630
    , 632, 
    470 P.2d 787
     (1970) (applying an abuse-of-discretion standard of review, an appellate court
    does not substitute its judgment for the trial court's where the judgment is reasonable).
    The district court's decision to revoke Carson's probation was reasonable under the
    totality of the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, Carson cannot establish the district
    court's action constituted an abuse of judicial discretion.
    In closing, we mention that the district court also denied Carson's request to reduce
    the overall term of imprisonment. That, too, is a discretionary judicial call. Although
    Carson does not specifically refer to that decision in his motion for summary disposition,
    the district court's decision against any modification, likewise, does not amount to an
    abuse of discretion for the same reasons the revocation itself does not.
    Affirmed.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 123287

Filed Date: 11/12/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/12/2021